The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

the USA should have universal background checks on gun sales

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/3/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 655 times Debate No: 78370
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




about forty percent of gun sales currently do not involve background checks. that means there's plenty of head way to be made here.

true, some will just get guns illegally. but not ALL of them will. this is common sense. to say otherwise is like saying we shouldn't have crime laws cause some crime will occur. not everyone who is denied is a black hoodie who will stop at nothing to get a gun.


This is my first official debate and therefore, I do not know what kind of formalities must be observed before beginning a debate, but I wish my opponent good luck and I am looking forward to this debate :)

I have chosen to argue against backround checks on guns for the following reasons:

---They are a hassle for law-abiding citizens. An article on states: ".....[Backround checks] mean forcing law-abiding people to fork over excessive fees to exercise their rights. Forcing parents to fill out forms to leave a family heirloom to a loved one. Standing in line and filling out a bunch of bureaucratic paperwork, just so a grandfather can give a grandson a Christmas gift. "

Then, on Fox News Sunday, LaPierre complained that under a universal check system, "If I want to sell you a shotgun or something like that ... we"ll have to go find a dealer or walk into a police station. Who"s going to do the check? There"s going to be fees. There"s going to be paperwork. There"s going to be law-abiding people caught up in a bureaucratic nightmare."

---They are/will be ineffectual. Criminals, as we all know, dont abide by the rules. So, in essence, the only people that will consent to backround checks will be the law-abiding citizens. Let me give an example:
There is a man that committed a crime that warranted taking away his gun rights. He is bent on committing another crime, but needs a gun to accomplish it.
Do you think the man will go to a dealer and submit himself to a backround check, or would he buy a gun from a friend/black market dealer? The answer is pretty simple. The man will acquire a gun whether or not there are universal backround checks. These checks wont do much to keep guns out of criminal's hands.

---As the same article as above states,
"Background checks are a slippery slope to confiscation.

"They"ll turn this universal check on the law-abiding into a universal registry of law-abiding people," LaPierre predicted on Fox. Keene said the NRA opposes "any kind of national gun registry system" because "that is a precursor, in many cases, to confiscation."

And even if the government doesn"t confiscate guns, Keene noted, the list of owners might be leaked or released to journalists and posted on the Internet, as happened recently in New York."
Debate Round No. 1


con argues background checks are a hassle to law abiding citizens. isn't it worth it if it saves thousands if not millions of lives?

con argues checks do not deter criminals anyway. like i argued in my original post, some will surely break the law and get a gun. but not all guns will. even con said as much. "These checks wont do much to keep guns out of criminal's hands." it will keep some guns out of criminals hands. just having a gun causes a person to be more likely to commit a crime with a gun, and if someone is denied by virtue of a check, but they aren't hell bent on getting a gun, they are less likely to commit a crime.

con argues background info could be made public. all i can say is it'd be rare for this to happen. criminal backgrounds in general could be made public, but you don't see that happening. and if it's rare, and the checks save thousands if not millions of lives, isn't it worth it?


I apologize if I am a bit informal in my debate.. :)

In all reality, backround checks will not save millions, thousands, or even hundreds of lives. I honestly doubt it will save any. If a criminal wants to get a gun, he will get a gun. Pure and simple. I have never heard of any criminal dumb enough to try to purchase a firearm legally, knowing his name will be run through a database. And say he were dumb enough to attempt to purchase a firearm legally. He would simply be turned away. This will not deter said criminal. There are easier and cheaper ways of buying a gun, whether you are a criminal or not. The only people that will submit themselves to backround checks are law-abiding citizens, so this 'solution' doesnt solve any problems.

Backround info could be made public. And it would not be 'rare' for it to happen. Any database is susceptible to being hacked. Lets take this scenario to a very realistic conclusion:

The US enforces backround checks, and builds a database, which includes everyone who owns a gun and what gun they own. If that database were to be hacked (and it would be) that information would be extremely useful for criminals interested in burglary. Said criminals would feel very confident breaking into houses that they know arent armed.

I dont see a benefit in having a database on gun owners. There is no pro, but there are many cons.
Debate Round No. 2


dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.


I see that my opponent forfeited the round, so I have no arguments to counter.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Max.Wallace 3 years ago
you mean check the whole universe? get a grip.
Posted by lannan13 3 years ago
Challenge me and I can accept on Monday.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round. This is poor conduct.